Fighting the Famine-Stricken

Published:Iskra, No. 9, October 1901.

      Published according toIskratext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1961,

      Moscow,Volume 5,

      pages231-238.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Whatastonishing solicitude for the famine-stricken our government is
      displaying! What an amazingly long circular (of August 17) the Minister of
      the Interior has issued to the governors of the affected gubernias! A
      veritable literary work, more than sixteen pages long, written by
      Mr. Sipyagin to explain the government’s food policy in its entirety. The
      document was apparently published to impress the “public”, as
      if to say: See how solicitous we are, how prompt we are with relief
      measures, how providential we are in organising in advance food-kitchens
      and all forms and phases of their activity! It must be admitted that the
      circular issued by the Ministry of the Interior certainly does create an
      impression, both by its bulk and (if one has the patience to read it
      through) by its contents. A frank exposition of the government’s policy is
      always the best means for agitation against the tsarist government and,
      while expressing our profound gratitude to Mr. Sipyagin, we make bold to
      suggest that the other ministers speak more frequently of their programme
      in circulars published for general information.

Ifone has the patience to read through Mr. Sipyagin’s circular to the
      end, we said. A great deal of patience will be required, for
      three-fourths, nay, nine-tenths of the circular consists of the usual
      official banalities. It is a rehash of things known for years and repeated
      a hundred times even in the “Code of

      Laws”.[1]It is a mass of circumlocution, a detailed description of the ceremonial
      in the relations between Chinese mandarins; it is in the grand style of
      the chancelleries, with periods thirty-six lines long, in a
      “jargon” that makes the heart bleed for our native Russianlanguage. As you read deeply into this effusion, you feel as though you
      were in a Russian police-station with its musty walls and its
      all-pervading specific stench, in which the officials personify in their
      appearance and bearing the most case-hardened bureaucracy, while in the
      courtyard, visible through the window, gloomy buildings loom reminiscent
      of the torture chamber.

Threemain points in the government’s new programme attract particular
      attention: first, greater power is vested in the individual officials and
      care is taken that the bureaucratic spirit and service discipline should
      be strengthened and protected from any breath of fresh air; secondly, a
      scale of relief is fixed for the famine-stricken, viz., regulations on the
      rationing of bread to be given to a “needy” family; and,
      thirdly, despairing horror is expressed at the fact that
      “disloyal” persons, capable of arousing the people against the
      government, are rushing in to help the famine-stricken, and timely
      measures against such “agitation” are provided for. We shall
      deal with each of these points in detail.

Onlya year has elapsed since the government deprived the Zemstvos of the
      right to manage food affairs and transferred that administration to the
      rural superintendents and uyezd congresses (law of June 12, 1900). Now
      before the law has come into force, it has been repealed by a mere
      circular. The reports of a number of provincial governors sufficed to
      convince the government that the law had become unsuitable! This makes
      plainly evident the worthlessness of laws that are turned out like
      pancakes by the St. Petersburg government departments without prior
      discussion on a serious level by people really informed and capable of
      expressing an independent opinion, and without serious intention to create
      a more satisfactory state of affairs, laws that are dictated by the
      ambition of some cunning minister eager to further his career and display
      his loyalty. The Zemstvo is not loyal—take the food administration
      out of its hands! But before this could be done it was discovered that the
      rural superintendents and even the uyezd congresses, consisting
      exclusively of government officials, were inclined to discuss matters too
      much. Apparently there were rural superintendents stupid enough to call
      famine famine and simple enough to think it necessaryto fight against the famine, and not against those who really want to help
      the famine-stricken; and in all probability there were officials in the
      uyezd congresses who were not subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior
      and who also failed to understand the real tasks of “home
      politics”. And so, by the mere circular of a minister a new
      “Central Uyezd”—no, this is not a printer’s
      error—a “Central Uyezd Food Board” is set up, the whole
      purpose of which is to prevent the infiltration of disloyal persons and
      disloyal ideas and the commission of imprudent acts in the administration
      of food distribution. Thus, the Minister considers as imprudent and
      prohibits the “premature” compilation (i.e., not immediately
      before the bread distribution) of lists of the needy. It arouses, he says,
      “exaggerated hopes” among the people! The Central Uyezd Food
      Board is concentrated in the hands of asingle person, and the
      Ministry recommendsthe uyezd marshal of the nobilityfor the
      post. Indeed, that official is so closely connected with the governor and
      performs so many police functions that he will doubtless be able to
      understand the true spirit of the food policy. More over, he is a big
      local landed proprietor, respected and trusted by all the landlords. A man
      of that type will certainly understand, as no one else will, the
      Minister’s profound idea on the “demoralising” effects of
      relief given to persons “able to dispense with it”. As for the
      gubernatorial powers, the Minister refers to this subject at the very
      beginning of the circular and repeats over and over again that the
      governor is responsible for everything, that all must obey the governor,
      that the governor must be able to take “special” measures,
      etc. To this day the governor in a Russian province has always been a real
      satrap upon whose pleasure the existence of any and every institution, and
      even of every individual, in the province “in his charge”
      depends; but now a real “state of war” has been
      established. Severity increased to an inordinate degree—in
      connection with famine relief! This is so truly Russian!

Butgreater stringency, intensified surveillance—all this demands
      increased expenditure on the bureaucratic machine, a fact of which the
      Minister has not lost sight; the uyezd marshals of the nobility, or other
      persons directing the Central Uyezd Food Board, will be granted “a
      special sum to cover their expenses,” “concerning the approximate amount
      whereof Your Excellency will tender the appropriate application to
      me”, adds the circular in its “special” jargon. In
      addition, further sums will be granted as follows: 1,000 rubles in a lump
      sum for uyezd council “office expenses”; from 1,000 to 1,500
      rubles for expenses of the gubernia governor s offices. It is the offices
      that will have to carry on most of the activity, since famine relief will
      consist almost entirely of office work—how can the offices be left
      without the necessary funds? The offices come first, and what is left can
      go to the famine-stricken.

Mr.Sipyagin displays remarkable persistence and resourcefulness in
      devising measures forreducingfamine relief. In the first place,
      he calls upon all governors to discuss which uyezds “have been
      affected by the harvest failure” (the final determination on this
      matter rests with the Ministry itself, since even governors cannot be
      trusted to avoid “exaggeration”!). Then follow the instructions
      indicating when uyezdsare not to beregarded as affected areas:
      (1) if not more than one-third of its

      volosts [See footnote top.
	  36.—Tr]

      are affected; (2) if a grain shortage is usual in the uyezd and additional
      grain is purchased annually with subsidiary earnings; (3) if local
      resources are insufficient to grant relief. Here we have an example in
      miniature of the bureaucratic solution of the food problem— one
      measuring rod for all! What is the size of the population of one-third of
      the volosts? how seriously are they affected? have not the usual
      “earnings” been reduced this year by the serious industrial
      crisis?— all these are idle questions after the categorical
      “directions” of the Ministry. But the worst is still to
      come. The point at issue is—who is to be regarded as needy and how
      much relief is to be granted? Mr. Sipyagin recommends the following
      “approximate” computation which “has rarely been found
      to be greatly exaggerated”. (What we fear most of all is
      exaggeration; we fear exaggerated hopes, we fear exaggerated loans!
      Famine, unemployment—all these are merely
      “exaggerations”. Such is the idea that clearly emerges from
      all the ministerial reasoning.) In the first place, a test threshing is to
      be made to determine the“averageyield per dessiatine in
      each village”,after which the area sown by each farmer is to be estimated. Why not also
      determine the size of the crop harvested by farmers of different means?
      The harvest of a poor peasant is smaller, and the term
      “average” is disadvantageous precisely to those in
      distress. Secondly, those who gather not less than forty-eight poods of
      grain per family per annum (counting twelve poods for three adults and six
      poods for two children) are not regarded as being in distress. This is the
      sort of calculation a tight-fisted kulak could be expected to make. In an
      ordinary year even the poorest peasant family of five or six persons
      consumes eighty, not forty-eight, poods of grain, whereas the middle
      (average) peasant family of five consumes 110 poods, as is known from
      surveys of peasant farming. Consequently, the tsarist government is
      cutting downby one halfthe amount of grain actually needed for
      food. Thirdly, says the circular, “this quantity [viz., forty-eight
      poods per family] is to be reduced by one half, in view of the fact that
      the worker element represents about fifty per cent of the
      population”. The government stubbornly insists upon its standing
      rule that the working population must not be given relief because, as it
      argues, they can earn money. But the Minister has already ordered that the
      uyezds in which the population is normally engaged in auxiliary
      occupations shall not come under the heading of affected areas. Why, then,
      should he deprive the working population of relief for asecond
      time?Everyone knows that, not only are there no opportunities for
      earning extra money this year, but that even the usual subsidiary earnings
      have declined owing to the crisis. The government itself has banished many
      thousands of unemployed workers from the cities to the rural areas. The
      experience of previous famines has shown that exclusion of the adult
      working population from relief leads only to the division of the existing
      inadequate relief between children and adults. No, the saying that
      “you can not skin one ox twice” would be far too flattering
      for a Ministry of the Interior that in a twofold way excludes from the
      relief lists all who are able to work. Fourthly, this relief, totally
      inadequate and reduced by one half, is still furthercut downby
      one-third, one-fifth, or one-tenth, “in proportion to the
      approximate number of well-to-do farmers having stocks left over from last
      year, or any other materialresources”! This is the third hide flayed from the same ox. What kind of
      “stock” can a peasant have if he has harvested not more than
      forty-eight poods of grain for his whole family? All other earnings have
      been taken into account twice; moreover, even the Russian peasant, with
      all the poverty to which government policy and exploitation by capitalists
      and landlords have reduced him, cannot live by bread alone. In addition to
      bread, he must spend money on fuel, clothes, and other food, as well as on
      repairs to his house. In ordinary years, as scientific inquiries into peasant farming inform us, even the poorest peasant spendsmore than
      halfhis income on requirements other than bread. If all these things
      are taken into account, it will be found that the Minister calculates the
      relief to be granted atone- fourth or one-fifthof what is
      actually needed. This is not fighting famine, it is fighting those who
      really want to help the famine-stricken.

Thecircular concludes with a regular crusade against private
      philanthropists. It has not infrequently been revealed, thunders
      Mr. Sipyagin, that certain philanthropists strive to arouse among the
      population “discontent with the present system and encourage the
      people to make totally unjustified demands on the government”, that
      they conduct “anti-government agitation”, etc. These
      accusations are absolutelyfalse. It is well known that in 1891
      leaflets were distributed by “peasant

      well-wishers”[2]in which the people were rightly told who their real enemy was; probably
      other attempts at agitation were made in connection with the famine. But
      there was not a single case of revolutionaries carrying on propaganda
      under cover of philanthropy. The vast majority of the
      philanthropists—this is an undoubted fact—were just
      philanthropistsand nothing more. When, therefore, Mr. Sipyagin
      states that many of them were “persons whose political past is not
      irreproachable”, we ask him, who among us now has an
      “irreproachable past”? Even “highly-placed persons”
      often paid tribute to the general democratic movement in their youth. Of
      course, we do not wish to say that to carry on agitation against the
      government in connection with the famine is impermissible or even
      undesirable. On the contrary, such agitation is always necessary,
      particularly in times of famine. Wemerely wish to point out that Mr. Sipyagin isstraying into the realm
	of fictionin trying to make it appear that his fears and anxieties
	are based on past experience. We wish to say that Mr. Sipyagin’s
	statement is further proof of an old truism: the police government is
	afraid of even the slightest contact between the people and
	intellectuals that are in the least independent and honest, it fears
	every true and bold utterance addressed directly to the people, it
	suspects— and rightly so—that mere solicitude for the
	genuine (not imaginary) satisfaction of the people’s needs is tantamount
	to agitation against the government; for the people see that private
	philanthropists sincerely desire to help them, while the tsarist
	government officials hamper and reduce relief, minimise the extent of
	the distress, impede the opening of food-kitchens, etc. Now the new
	circular demands that all contributions and appeals for contributions,
	as well as the opening of food-kitchens, “be under the control of
	the authorities”; it demands that all relief workers arriving in
	the affected areas “present themselves” to the governor,
	that they may choose assistants only with his consent, and that they
	submit to him a report of their activities! Those who desire to help the
	famine-stricken must submit to police officials and to the police system
	of curtailing relief and shamefully reducing relief rates. Whoever
	refuses to submit to this despicable procedure must not be allowed to
	carry on relief work—such is the essence of government
	policy. Mr. Sipyagin howls that “politically unreliable persons
	are eagerly taking advantage of the famine to pursue their criminal aims
	on the pretence of helping their neighbours”, and this cry is
	taken up by the entire reactionary press (e.g.,Moskovskiye
	Vedomosti). How horrible! To exploit the sufferings of the people
	for political purposes! In point of fact, what is horrible is precisely
	the fact that in Russia every kind of activity,evenphilanthropic work most remote from politics, inevitably brings people
	capable of independent thought into conflict with police tyranny and
	with measures of “suppression”, “prohibition”,
	“restriction”, etc., etc. It is horrible that the
	government, under the cloak of high political considerations, pursues
	its Judas

      policy[3]of taking bread from the starving, cutting down relief to one-fifth,
      prohibiting everyone except police officialsfrom approaching the starving! We repeat the call issued inIskra:Organise a campaign of exposure against the police
      government’s food policy; expose in the uncensored free press the outrages
      committed by local satraps, the whole avaricious tactic of curtailing
      relief, the miserliness and inadequacy of the relief, the despicable
      attempt to minimise the extent of the famine, and the shameful struggle
      against those who desire to help the famine-stricken! We advise all who
      have a grain of sincere sympathy for the people in their dire distress to
      take measures to bring to their knowledge the true sense and significance
      of the ministerial circular. It is only because of the unbounded ignorance
      of the people thatsuchcirculars do not immediately call forth
      an outburst of general indignation. Let the class-conscious workers who
      stand closest to the peasantry and to the less enlightened urban masses
      take the initiative in this work of exposing the government!

[1]Code of Laws of the Russian Empire—a collected edition of
      the laws operative in the Russian Empire, published in fifteen volumes in
      1833 and effective from 1835; a sixteenth volume was published in 1892.

[2]The
      reference is to the proclamation entitled“A First Letter to the
      Famine-Stricken Peasants”, which appeared in 1892 over the sig
      nature “Peasant Well-Wishers”. About 1,800 copies of the
      procla mation were printed at the illegal Lakhta Press belonging to the
      Narodnaya Volya Group in St. Petersburg.

[3]Lenin refers to Judas Golovlyov—a sanctimonious, hypocritical
      landlord serf-owner described in M. Saltykov-Shchedrin’sThe Golovlyov
      Family.